uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lou DeGenaro <lou.degen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA-AS 2.8.1 RC3
Date Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:43:24 GMT
Why do we feel the need to edit the AMQ distribution rather than include it
and its Notice and License information in its entirety?  If we think a
lighter weight AMQ distribution is desirable, any chance of get the AMQ
folks to provide such instead of us hacking?

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <rec@apache.org>
wrote:

> I agree with Marshall. The NOTICE/LICENSE files should reflect what
> is actually inside a JAR/ZIP and non-applicable parts should - if feasible
> -
> be removed.
>
> That said, the LICENSE/NOTICE files e.g. from the Spring distribution are
> also
> usually shooting beyond the goal and make references to third-party code
> that
> may or may not be in a particular artifact... and all artifacts contain the
> same notices/licenses.
>
> In the case of Spring, I find it not particularly practicable to figure out
> what is relevant and what not.
>
> But here, specific parts seem to be clearly assignable to specific
> non-packaged JARs,
> so it appears to be practicable to be more accurate.
>
> -- Richard
>
> > On 26.04.2016, at 23:03, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a summary (please correct if wrong):
> >
> > There are two "optional" JARs not distributed with UIMA-AS have license
> and
> > (partial) notice info in the uima-as LICENSE/NOTICE files.
> >
> > One of the value propositions that lets others make use of our
> technology is the
> > reputation we maintain about our always somewhat imperfect attempts at
> having
> > accurate license and notice files.  I would prefer that we strive to
> keep our
> > reputation where it is by removing the license and partial notice for
> these
> > JARs, and perhaps adding some documentation (if needed) specifying what
> JARs can
> > be optionally downloaded (from ActiveMQ distribution) for providing
> additional
> > functionality, not provided out of the box by the UIMA-AS binary
> distribution.
> >
> > Having said that, if the others on the PMC feel that this flaw (having
> extra
> > licenses and extra (partial) notices not needed is OK for releasing, I
> won't
> > stand in the way.
> >
> > I'll do a bit more testing, and then if nothing more is found, vote -0 to
> > indicate this.
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > -Marshall
> >
> >
> > On 4/26/2016 11:05 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> >> Thanks Marshall. Just to provide more context for the problems found
> >>
> >> The JmDNS seems to be part of auto discovery of network of brokers via
> >> unicast instead of hard coded URLs.  This is not part of standard
> uima-as
> >> configuration we distribute. When such functionality is needed users may
> >> download their own copy of AMQ and use that. Of course there is an
> issue of
> >> having this jar documented in LICENSE and NOTICE but not present in the
> >> distribution.
> >>
> >> The second one jasypt is providing encryption and decryption of user
> >> credentials per: http://activemq.apache.org/encrypted-passwords.html. I
> >> think the lack of this jar can also be dealt with the same way as above.
> >>
> >> Given the above I will await your vote. One way or the other I need your
> >> vote to proceed. Seems like quality of the distribution mandates RC3
> vote
> >> down.
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Although others may be voting +1 to release, just to be clear, I'm
> >>> currently -1
> >>> until the license / notice issues mentioned above are resolved.
> >>>
> >>> -Marshall
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message